Vladimir Putin Thread

I don't really disagree with you and I don't think Karlin is particularly against Putin or those plans. Some years ago he rated Putin 8/10 as a leader, although a while ago he dropped it to 7/10. He's just a Russian nationalist (yeah, Western MSM, nationalists/ultra-nationalists are much more numerous than your beloved pro-Western "liberals"), who are against certain policies of the Russian establishment: "importing" migrants from Central Asia, the blocking of nationalist websites and "hate speech", etc (again, yes Western media, the Russian authorities actually do that and contrary to popular believe in the West, Putin and the Russian establishment are not actually ultra-nationalists).

It's just that Singapore seems to be particularly clean, with a very low level of corruption and meritocratic government, while being authoritarian. Russia is of course very different, when it comes to its size, culture and history. Russia is still sort of a work-in-progress. But in any case they seem to think that Putin will become Russia's Lee Kuan Yew (which means he will actually retire in 2022-24), with United Russia as the dominant political party. That doesn't sound bad to me at all.

His article on Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/lee-kuan-yews-flawed-utopia/

So @antontroian and I trawled through Russian expat voting data and found massive increases in support for Putin among Russians living abroad - particularly in NATO countries. Germany alone saw a 3x increase in Putin votes. Check out our findings here:

(And no, I'm not going to even bother giving clicks to the Washington Post. Apparently the comment section is really bad as well. Not surprising, I remember last time I read something Russia-related there, I think it was just after Trump won. The commenters were absolutely unhinged...)

How about you limit the Russophobia a little, huh?

But things have gotten so crazy that is probably only going to increase Western hysteria. "Russian agents are everywhere, they're living among us!!!"

Very good news for Russia. Totally logical and well "deserved". Keep it up, Western elites and MSM!

So @antontroian and I trawled through Russian expat voting data and found massive increases in support for Putin among Russians living abroad - particularly in NATO countries. Germany alone saw a 3x increase in Putin votes. Check out our findings here:

(And no, I'm not going to even bother giving clicks to the Washington Post. Apparently the comment section is really bad as well...............

Fucking assholes...

I gave them click (they actually started asking for money for their crap recently so I might as well have fun while it's free) and it's definitely oozing butthurt.

I am sure the bus that collected people voting for Putin were luxury vehicles with caviar and champaign, while transport for other voters was a hand cart and after every km you had to take your turn to pull...

"Putin Has Shown Weakness in Armenia and Syria – Is His Credibility Collapsing?"

"Since the Ukrainian crisis of 2013-2014, to many observers of the Russian scene it was clear that Putin was not a master strategist who plots his moves well ahead of his opponents. … At best he is a manager who keeps divergent forces within Moscow’s power structure in balance, rather than a statesman.”

Tens of thousands of Armenians converged on the capital Yerevan on Wednesday morning, blocking roads and government buildings in protest over the ruling party’s reluctance to transfer power in the country to opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan.

Protesters said they would stay on the streets for as long as it takes to oust the ruling Republican Party and install Pashinyan as prime minister. Apparently it worked: by the end of the day Pashinyan announced that all parties would support his bid for power, and called for an end to protests.

“The issue has practically been solved,” he told the cheering crowd at a rally in Yerevan. “All [parliamentary] factions say they will support my candidacy.”

The regime-change operation in Armenia has been a textbook color revolution every step of the way, tried and tested in Belgrade (2000), Tbilisi (2003), and most notably Kiev (2004, repeated 2014). There is a significant difference, however. Unlike Serbia, Georgia or Ukraine, Armenia is a formal ally of the Russian Federation, a member of the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC)—two pillars of President Vladimir Putin’s presumed geopolitical strategy. Significantly, Armenia also hosts a major Russian military base in Gyumri, leased until 2044, which the current government’s defense minister Vigen Sargasyan described last year as “a vital component of our country’s national security system.”

Armenia is déjà vu all over again.

“Envision people from all walks of life—students, teachers, workers, artists, journalists, clergy, soldiers—smiling, laughing, and hugging one another,” a friendly observer gushed. “A sea of flags . . . fills the square, and taxi drivers are honking their horns and popping champagne. The atmosphere is stirring and electric! These are ordinary people who stood up for transparent and accountable government. They mobilized to fight for a cause from a grassroots level, and they eventually won against almost impossible odds.”

Unsurprisingly, the “ordinary people” interviewed for major Western networks just happened to be young, well-groomed, fluent English-speakers. Initially they demanded the resignation of recently appointed prime minister Serzh Sargasyan, who had been Armenia’s president for a decade before arranging—contrary to earlier promises—the sideways move to the new post, which would let him keep old power. In the early days of protests Sargsyan appears to have expected support and advice from Moscow, and—failing to get it—resigned on April 23 with a strangely worded statement:

But his admission of defeat no longer satisfied the protesters, however, who shifted their demand to an outright regime change, i.e. immediate transfer of power to Pashinyan.

Source: Russia Insider

The demand was hardly in line with the protesters’ claim to revere “democracy.” Described as “a muckraking journalist turned politician,” Pashinyan has modest electoral credentials. His Way Out Alliance won just under 8 percent of votes in Armenia’s 2017 parliamentary election, the legitimacy of which has not been disputed, and currently has only nine deputies in the country’s 105-seat national assembly. “Way Out” is a classic “pro-Western, pro-EU,” self-avowedly liberal party, intricately linked to a tight network of foreign-supported NGOs. It is opposed to Armenia’s membership of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and has been fiercely critical of what it regards as the current government’s excessive reliance on Moscow.

The script was familiar in every detail, including the unwillingness (or inability) of the Kremlin to anticipate and influence events.

“In general, Russia acted with incredible caution,” noted a protest-friendly Armenian analyst, which is to say that Russia remained invisible.

There was nothing “incredible” about the Kremlin’s inertia, however: Moscow was equally unable or unwilling to exert influence in other color revolution theaters, most notably in Ukraine in 2014. When an openly Russophobic regime came to power in Kiev after the February coup d’etat, Putin merely warned of the “tragic consequences of the wave of so-called color revolutions.”

As we now see, his warning was purely rhetorical. Four years later, with the same old scenario unfolding, he did nothing to prevent the reprise in Armenia—even though its objective was to topple the lawful government of a country (one of very few), which has entered both a military and an economic alliance with the Russian Federation.

Putin’s apologists in the Russian media and elsewhere were quick to claim that the change in Yerevan would not mean much in geopolitical terms, supposedly because its causes were “purely internal and any future government would need to rely on Russian protection against Turkey and/or Azerbaijan.

With the same dismissive indolence, pro-government media have hardly taken note of the decision of Kazakhstan to discard Cyrillic and adopt Latin as the national language script. They consistently ignore the signs of estrangement of Belarus, where President Lukashenka is quietly trying to make himself grudgingly acceptable to the West . . . just as Montenegro’s Milo Djukanovic had successfully done in the waning days of Milosevic’s power.

(Talking of Montenegro, the Russians invested heavily in the tiny former Yugoslav republic in the early 2000’s, and actively supported its separation from Serbia in 2006, only to be rewarded by the imposition of sanctions by the Djukanovic regime in Podgorica in 2014, and its joining NATO in 2017.)

If the remaining two non-Russian members of the EAEC go, and the writing is on the wall, there will be literally nothing left. Moscow seems to display an extraordinary degree of complacency in areas Russia regards as safely within its historic sphere of influence, foreign affairs analyst James Jatras warns, even though the West—and especially the United States—explicitly rejects such assignment:

“The neglect Russia showed toward Ukraine after 1991 is now revealed to have been replicated in Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. After they’re ‘flipped,’ what does Russia have left except its own territory? Then Russia itself will be treated with no greater respect by the authors of regime change operations. As I have pointed out recently, Russia really IS America’s No. 1 enemy (as per Mitt Romney’s assessment), if ‘America’ means the ruling establishment, which is totally united in its Russophobia.”

It is not coincidental that the Armenian operation came in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s display of weakness in Syria, after the false flag operation in Douma (April and the ensuing bombing of Syrian government targets by the United States, Britain and France (April 14). Putin has been indecisive and weak throughout the crisis, I concluded in these pages two days later, doing nothing after his senior officers repeatedly warned of a forthcoming stage-managed atrocity leading to a Western attack, and leaving Bashar al Assad’s air-defense units to their own modest devices.

On April 16 Putin merely reinforced the impression of weakness when he said that yet another such attack on his nominal Syrian ally would “cause chaos.” Predictably, this has prompted the Russophobic full-spectrum hegemonists in Washington (and their minions in London) to demand decisive escalation, because “Putin has blinked” and “Russia has shown itself to be a paper tiger.” One predictable consequence is that Assistant Secretary for Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell, during his visit to Kiev and Tbilisi, urged Russia to “withdraw troops from Georgia” (meaning Abkhazia and South Ossetia, an utterly impossible demand) and expressed support for both Ukraine’s and Georgia’s bid to join NATO.

Eventually the Russians may be forced to respond to ever-escalating provocations. The price of their current appeasement will be a radically reduced maneuvering space, however, and therefore an exponentially greater danger of lethal escalation. Part of the problem, according to an astute British analyst of Serbian origin, is that Russia simply does not understand soft power, its economy is about the size of Spain’s, its nuclear arsenal is useless in localized power ploys, its conventional forces have not impressed anybody, and Putin is too frightened of confronting the West except when things threaten to go over the top (Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014): “Russia is not behaving like a superpower because it isn’t one.”

An additional sign of disorientation and utter feebleness in the Kremlin is the news that former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to “mend fences with the West” in order to revive Russia’s economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia’s fifth-columnists were exalted:

“If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia,” said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. “It would be a powerful message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the west and towards whom there is a certain trust.”

Putting Kudrin—an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus—in charge of Russia’s international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls’ school. It would mark Putin’s de facto collapse as a leader. We shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of what he does (or doesn’t do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.

Last but not least, over the past four weeks Israel has acted in a manner almost calculated to humiliate Putin. “Russia blames Israel for strikes on Syrian base,” the Western media reported on April 9, and Russia was right—Israeli jets did pound Syria’s T-4 facility near Homs, killing 14 people, seven of them Iranians, and turning the base to rubble. Israel did not officially declare that its aircraft attack the base at Tiyas, but Israeli military sources confirmed it. Calmly and deliberately, the government in Jerusalem thus ended its “deconfliction” arrangement with Russia which was negotiated between Putin and Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2015. The agreement gave Israel a free hand against weapons transfers from Iran to Hezbollah, and allowed continued Israeli deterrence on its northern border.

Putin responded meekly, literally pleading with Netanyahu on April 12 to refrain from further action in Syria. The response from Israel could hardly have been more harsh and offensive. Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman announced on April 25 that Israel would be prepared to strike at any S-300 missile defense system in Syria threatening Israeli planes. This effectively means that Israel declared its readiness to attack Russian-operated systems if they are not granted a free run, since Moscow had abided by its decision—made originally at Israel’s request!—not to send the S-300 to Bashar’s forces. As if to make the point, Israeli jets mounted a massive attack on another Syrian military base near Hama on April 29, allegedly destroying 200 Iranian missiles and killing over 20 military personnel. Yet again Russia did nothing (verbal condemnations and warnings are no longer worthy of mention). As a Washington insider told me, the war hawks inside the Beltway are delighted:

“When all is said and done, Israel is behaving as a world power, and Russia isn’t. With its strikes in Syria and threats against Russia and Iran, Israel—backed up by the U.S.—feels free to act with impunity. Moscow meanwhile restrains itself under some fictive notion of ‘partnership’ with western powers. This only spurs further provocations under the expectation, based on experience to date, that it is cost-free.”

The interventionists believe that it is now time to take advantage of Putin’s weakness by chasing the Russians out of Syria altogether, reopening the Ukrainian front, completing the regime change in Armenia, and encouraging the implosion of the remnant of the Russian-led security and economic alliances. My prediction is that they will also sabotage the FIFA World Cup, which is due to be held in Russia June 14 – July 15, by encouraging their proxies to stage another false-flag operation (which will be blamed on Moscow directly), or to carry out a terrorist attack on one of the competition’s venues.

Ever since the second Ukrainian crisis erupted in the winter of 2013-2014, to many observers of the Russian scene it was clear that Putin was not a master strategist who plots his moves well ahead of his opponents. As I noted here during my visit to Moscow a month ago, after 18 years in power he has been shockingly unable to sort out the structural deficiencies of Russia’s economy, which is still dominated by corrupt oligarchs and globalist fifth-columnists. At best he is a manager who keeps divergent forces within Moscow’s power structure in balance, rather than a statesman.

Over the past three weeks his credibility has been deeply eroded. It is uncertain whether he can regain it—belatedly acting more like Churchill than Chamberlain—and thus make the danger of nuclear holocaust less acute.

Protesters said they would stay on the streets for as long as it takes to oust the ruling Republican Party and install Pashinyan as prime minister."

What a load of shit... Putin is not a great strategist because he cannot predict the future?

Wha wha wha... Putin is Stalin... and then when Putin doesn't act like Stain or to be honest the US and interfere in things that quite frankly he has no business deciding on with Russian forces he is suddenly weak?

Armenians need to sort their own shit out, it is not any place for Putin to go in there and tell them what to do... they are friends... not just Putins puppets... they can do what they want and all he can do is offer help or help if they ask for it.

I realise no one in the west understands that countries can be friends and yet have no right to send in troops whenever they please... I understand western democracies don't understand the will of the people and democracy and all that shit.

So Putin must be a weakling because he does not invade a friendly country and impose his will on the situation, and of course he and Assad are winning in Syria but somehow that is not good enough either... he needs to be stupid and do a Suckarse milli vanilli and give the US and the west some reason to invade Syria and take charge... kicking the Russians out and getting Assad murdered in the street by western assassins...

The western dreams for the future... Putin stronghands Armenia, who calls to the west for help... Russia kicked out of the region... Putin bombs US bases near Syria in response to cruise missile attacks and ongoing western support for terrorist groups and in an over reaction (does the US know any other kind) the US and europe declare a no fly zone over all of syria and support a Turkish/EU force invasion... and China sees the weakness of Russia and invades Siberia with the help of Siberian separatists take it all over and need western technology to drill so US and European companies get drilling rights...

And then the West wakes up and their sheets are wet, and their mom is telling them they are late for school again...

There's a suggestion that this will be Pres Putin's last term.He's 65 and the term is 6 yrs. That would bring him to 71.Not old, especially given his excellent mental and physical fitness.Hardworking premiers have been far older - including in the USA eg Trump.Whilst nobody is perfect, I think he's truly a great statesman and father figure to Russia.Even if there are a number of individuals below him who might leave much to be desired (I'm thinking particularly at local and regional level and the libtards/sellouts to US imperialism).

Anyway, I'm wondering about a special role being created for Putin when he is no longer president.The reasons are that he guided Russia through a difficult period, and he has become a unifier and a father figure. This would be an honourary/statesman type role. I'm not sure how to term this. "Chancellor" is associated with Germany, and he obviously wouldn't a "Tsar" (despite Western smear efforts). Ancient Rome had two consuls (advisors) for the Emperor. Perhaps a specific Russian word could be used? His role would be as a non binding advisor and as a symbolic head of state.

Following on from the above post, I am wondering who people think Putin should prepare as his long term successor. Ofcourse there are numerous individuals who would be capable. I am thinking Lavrov and Shoigu and others. But they are a similar age to Putin, although perhaps with less "miles on the clock" ie haven't worked such strenuous hours for as long.

Putin is a great mix. An inspirational "action man". Part philosopher, part siloviki, part academic eg with a thesis on Russia as an energy superpower. Skilled politician, but a thoroughly decent person who is astute to what Russia needs in this era and going forward. He's also routed in traditional Socialist ideals but is pragmatic about what is needed for the future ie not weighed down by unwieldy ideology of the past.Ofcourse you could argue he's had some blindspots. But he can only use the cards he's been dealt, and he inherited a monumental mess.

I suspect it would be very difficult to find a like for like replacement. And I wonder if that would even be desirable for the 2020s and even 2030s. Maxim Oreshkin seems very capable on financial and commercial matters. And Alexei Dyumin seems the like a good military, geopolitical/siloviki figure. I don't know a huge amount about them. Do they have the personality, charisma and vision that is needed? Is there a 3rd person that blends the best of them both? Russia clearly needs a strong leader. Consensus bullshit doesn't seem to work well.

Who do people think might make a good successor if Putin stands down in 2024?How do people think a transition should be managed?Should a slightly different format of government be adopted?For instance Oreshkin and Dyumin as Vice-Presidents and Putin retains a less active role as President in some sort of transition period?

Firebird wrote:Anyway, I'm wondering about a special role being created for Putin when he is no longer president.The reasons are that he guided Russia through a difficult period, and he has become a unifier and a father figure. This would be an honourary/statesman type role. I'm not sure how to term this. "Chancellor" is associated with Germany, and he obviously wouldn't a "Tsar" (despite Western smear efforts). Ancient Rome had two consuls (advisors) for the Emperor. Perhaps a specific Russian word could be used? His role would be as a non binding advisor and as a symbolic head of state.

So I was wondering what people's thoughts are on this?

That is a good idea, and has recent antecedents in other countries, like Lee Kuan Yew, who was assigned as Minister Mentor of Singapore until his death.Regarding a successor, I would propose Shoigu. He is not pro-West or liberal in any way, he has shown to be a very efficient manager as head of the MChS and now the Ministry of Defense, and is very popular. The only thing that may play against him is that he is only half Russian ethnic (his mother was Russian, his father Tuvan).

one of putin's biggest mistakes is his polite and soft character .. this is bad...If Putin show to bullies softness and insecurity and he does it.. all the time ,they are going to disrespecthim sooner or later and disrespect Russia..

You don't get it do you Vann... being aggressive and actively opposing the west would just make things worse and make Russia look like the bully instead of the west.

Russia has no future if the goal is to oppose and antagonise the west... Russia can't win that fight and will be badly mauled in the process.

The key is to absorb the punches... in fact turn them to your advantage... look at Putins history... he got the Crimea back for Russia, he imposed counter sanctions on the EU that have turned the food production industry in Russia around... that also means also creating a real internal market for tractors and other machinery... he has greatly improved relations with China, while maintaining relations with India, and he is vastly more respected in the rest of the world than Trump or May or Micron or Merkel for that matter.

Treating others with respect and expecting equal treatment is what gets on the nerve of the west... Trump lets it all hang out and does not hide the real bullying that goes on within the west... it has always occurred but only under him is it out in the open for all to see.

He has made a lot of countries realise that a global system dominated and run by US controlled systems and organisations can never become a fair playing field because the US will never play fair with anyone.

The US central international system is coming apart and trump is accelerating this process.

15-20 years ago there was no chance of alternatives for Russia to survive or grow after being cut off by the EU and the US and her allies, but now that Russian production and other measures to skirt around SWIFT and all of a sudden such things become real options for Russia and lots of other countries that don't see eye to eye with the west for various reasons... mostly hidden, but on the surface claimed to be morality based.

Saudi Arabia is an ally because the threat in the Middle East to Israel comes from Iran, and Saudi Arabia is happy to oppose Iran... if Saudi Arabia suddenly said Iran can be our friend and we can work together to create peace throughout the middle east and work together overnight US media will start reporting about Saudi Arabias poor record with gays and bi sexuals and the like and they will be the new bad guys... no matter how many billions of dollars in trade they generate, US politicians are funded by jewish billionaires... they could care less about the rich people making money from weapons contracts because the pro zion lobby will keep them in the money when the weapon makers have to start to work for a living.

one of putin's biggest mistakes is his polite and soft character .. this is bad...

To make the point clearer, you seem to want Russia to act like the west and bomb and kill people for the smallest reason.

I like Russia mainly because it does not act like the west does... Russia is not the worlds policeman and should never be that... mainly because there is no such thing as the worlds policeman.... generally it is organised lynch mob that picks a side and goes in and defends the side it picked even if afterwards they turn out worse than the side they went in to deal with.... yes, I am looking at Kosovo and Israel... but then when you have the west supporting you you think you can do no wrong either... just look at the ukraine...

Putin never dreamt of being president, had no intentions of becoming one

Putin said that at different times in his life, he wanted to do different things - for instance, to be a pilot, a military man, then, or worked as a foreign intelligence agent

MOSCOW, December 20. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin has never dreamt of becoming Russia’s leader, he said in an interview on the outcomes of his annual press conference.

"I have never dreamt of becoming president, I had no such dream and no intentions of becoming one. This happened due to a set of circumstances and an offer from the first president of Russia," he said, noting that he filled this post after the elections.

Putin said that at different times in his life, he wanted to do different things. "I wanted to be a pilot for some time, then a military man, then, when I grew up, I wanted to work as a foreign intelligence agent," the Russian leader said, noting that his desire to become an intelligence agent was based on films and books about this profession. "It seemed very important and interesting to me when a person working alone is able to achieve results that are important for the country on the whole and for millions of people due to the person’s knowledge, skills, love for the Fatherland, determination to succeed at all costs and self-sacrifice, especially if this takes place in special situations or war," the president said.

Putin added that while he did not expect to serve as Russia’s president, he has never regretted his decision to become one.